|
|
|
| Criticism of parties (IV)
The more complex society, the more heterogeneous party policy becomes. Back in the days when political positions were clear-cut, political parties needed no more than three of four pages to express their aims and goals. Political parties today, however, retreat from the world for years to make sure that a place is found in the policy statement for all sections of the party and all manner of interests. Needless to say, the process is extremely long, the size of the end document reminiscent of an encyclopedia and the result incredibly boring. At the end of this gargantuan process political parties are in a position to provide answers to questions from yesteryear. And the answers appear to be ineffectual, full of empty phrases and without life. Politicians, however, have to appear dynamic, full of life and strong-minded to have a chance of success. And anyway, political discourse does not fit in with the expectations of a modern media society, which is interested in personalization, images and excitement. Discourse on policy, in contrast, offers written words, abstractions and, if they are good, intellectuality. Political programs have a sense and meaning and are for the long-term; but television society prefers change, as well as fast and nonchalant role swapping. And because this is modern political reality, the party elite have little use for political programs (...). Indeed, this also means that political parties now have an altogether different "sense and meaning". And where sense and meaning is no longer important, there is also no need to waste time on argument and debate. Indeed, political parties no longer fight about anything other than the usual personal rivalries. The traditional inner-party core has largely lost its importance and is now just an instrument for personnel decisions and for meeting out of a sense of tradition. The inner-party core no longer represents a forum in which policy decisions are made and controversies hammered out. This is because TV politicians are well aware that divided parties are disliked by the electorate and that only united parties win elections. While this may well be true, it tears the political heart out of parties and robs them of their substance. It also weakens development of the next generation of politicians. Indeed the right political material will certainly not be produced in a structure free of conflict, in a homogenized atmosphere where party discipline comes from above. Determined, self-assertive politicians with a sharp instinct and a clearly-defined political sense socialize themselves during passionate battle, open debate and wild dispute and argument not during one-minute long statements in front of the cameras. Where no strong party wing exists, moderate leadership appears indecisive and undetermined. In political parties where opinion is very polarized, the ability of the leadership to integrate opposing positions is a highly skilled political art. To do this leaders must have the ability to broker peace, have the trust of opposing inner-party positions, the ability to balance and to concentrate minds as well as the ability to identify the one strategic policy around which the party can unite as a whole and campaign (...). Indeed, this shortage of good leadership is another reason why the parties appear so powerless; the reason why they find it so difficult to set the tone, pave the political direction and win political authority. And it is also because of this that they are blown off course by every media wind. A great deal of this is caused by the way the parties kowtow to a media-led society. In doing so politics has managed to rob itself of a political role. If truth be told, the depolarization of politics has been a major contributory factor in the increasing dislike and isolation of parties. Gags have taken the place of policies, short-lived images have replaced stable identities, marketing has superceded a set position and spin-doctors have taken the place of self-confident leadership. Politicians firmly believe that this is demanded by the modern media society. Yet this same media society only respects those politicians that hold on to their core beliefs in a confident and determined way, that don't look for favor from journalists and that don't want to appeal to the whole world. Politicians should not want to appeal. And who knows, perhaps the TV viewers at home, even if they themselves remain passive, do not expect fun and entertainment from politicians, but responsibility, meaning and serious action. Perhaps political parties should actually try another approach - hey, they might even try being political. [Taken from: Franz Walter, Die deutschen Parteien: Entkernt, ermattet, ziellos; in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 10/2001]
|
|
Subjects: Human
Rights I Democracy I Parties
I Examples I
Europe
I
Globalisation
I United Nations
I Sustainability
|
